skipton...can anyone help,mortgage shortfall(interest) : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

ive followed all advice from internet but Skipton wont give up and its ruining my life and health.The debt theyre after is 25,000 this is all interest.I am waiting for court hearing but most people are terrified to take skipton on i have appointment to see local CAB to see if they can help.I recieved some statements to 1993.I noticed thatit says i dont owe anything on these documents so im going to see if i can use this as a defence or maybe theres a time limit on interest please anyone who can help at all contact me asap im worried out of my mind thanks.

-- Ian Ward (, May 27, 2003


Ian, whats the worst that can happen? They can only pursue interest if its less than six years old, after that time only principal can be sued for. Check Halifax vs. Bartlett COA (think thats the case)

-- Neil (, May 28, 2003.


Firstly, the case Neil is thinking of is Bristol & West v Bartlett. You say you've followed all advice from the internet, does this mean you've followed the Home Repossession site advice? Have you put the lender to strict proof? When did you first default on your mortgage? When did they sell your property? Here is some info I think you will find useful regarding interest:

"Is the lender claiming statutory interest? If so, liability for any such interest that relates to more than 6 years ago should be denied - as it is statutory interest, it comes under LA s9, a sum recoverable under a statute, and is limited to the last 6 years."

Also, taken from a legal update page :

(c) A lender has 6 years after the cause of action accrues to recover interest due before sale, although the question of interest accruing after the sale of the property remains open;

(e) A lender should be able to show how the net proceeds of sale were applied to the mortgage account to avoid complex questions of appropriation of interest or capital

From two different solicitors comes:

In practice, monies received from a debtor or the proceeds of sale of a repossessed property are applied first to interest, including any elements that are statute barred. This means that the remaining shortfall debt is often comprised of principal alone, and although interest can accrue on a shortfall debt after sale, this does not usually happen."

On the sale of a repossessed property, lenders invariably appropriate the sale proceeds to interest first of all. The Bartlett case also confirms the legal principle that, in the absence of appropriation, payments go to discharge interest before they discharge capital. So, if the sale proceeds exceed the amount of interest accrued prior to the sale, you should assume that this interest has been paid off and does not form part of the claim.

Neil, you say the debt is all interest, given the above, you should definitely investigate this. Have Skipton given you a proper breakdown of how all this was worked out?

Furthermore, take a look at Gary Webber's site (Barrister) on under Capital and interest

See also my last posting under Adamson v Halifax (16th May).

Finally, if you want some more names of organisations which can help look at my posting under "Is suicide the answer" a short time back.

Hope this helps, don't let it get you down, all this can be resolved.

Good Luck,


-- M Amos (, May 28, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ